Search This Blog

Chinese American Psychology

One of my professors during grad school was Chinese American
psychologist Ben Tong.I took a few
Asian American Studies courses from him, and one course that he taught was Chinese American Psychology. Professor Tong’s course had a profound influence on me, and you
will find much of this influence in my writings.

The following is a composite article of three of Professor
Tong’s writings:

Chinese American PsychologySinologists are in general agreement that Confucian
philosophy was exploited by the monarchy and scholar-official administrators as
a device for social control of a numerically overwhelming peasant population in
medieval China.

With a vigorous revival (later known as Neo-Confucianism) in
the Tang dynasty, Confucian moral philosophy was exploited as a state ideology
for (a) justifying centralized rule and (b) for the subjugation of aboriginal
tribes, particularly those in south China.Events during the late Tang and the early Sung dynasties caused the
content of one of the Confucian norms (loyalty) to be radically altered.“From its earlier meaning as an obligation
tethered by moral judgment, it was redefined,” observed sinologist Arthur
Wright, “as an unquestioning allegiance to a superior.”Thus filial piety became, to borrow a term
from psychologist Donald Lim, unconditional obedience.

“Imperial Confucian tradition” was a modified (some would
say “distorted” or “maligned”) variety of Confucianism instituted by the ruling
elite in ancient China following the passing of the Great Sage, a brand of
Confucianism that has been effective for purposes of social control for over
2,000 years .According to the eminent
Sinologist Etienne Balaz,

“The scholar-officials and their state found in Confucianist
doctrine an ideology that suited them perfectly… In Han times, shortly after
the formation of the empire, it became state doctrine.The virtues preached by Confucianism were
exactly suited to the new hierarchical state: respect, humility, docility,
obedience, submission, and subordination to elders and betters.”

It is important to bear in mind that imperial Confucianism
is not to be confused with classical Confucianism, what the Master taught in
the original.Authoritative translations
in English are widely available to remind us that in addition to such themes as
deference, demeanor, and kindness, Master Kung’s philosophy was equally
emphatic about cultivation of a high level of individual autonomy and integrity, in stark contrast to the rigid
conformity demanded by patriarchal imperial authority:

“The mature individual can see a question from all sides
without bias.”

“The small man is biased and can see a question only from
one side.”

“Good people can stand alone without fear and can leave
society without distress.”

My Comments:Confucius brought about a revolutionary way of
thinking at a time when China was in perpetual war.Confucius lived from 551-479 BC, and by that
time China already had a 1500+ year history of constant warfare amongst various
kingdoms.Many philosophers at the time
were looking at developing a mass psychology to bring about peace and institute
personal and governmental ethics and codes of conduct to ameliorate the chaos
of war, feuding clans and rampant acts of vengeance.Sun Tzu was a contemporary of Confucius, and
he wrote the Art of War, which taught how to win wars with the minimal
necessary force and loss of life.

One of the things Classical Confucianism emphasized was the
mutual obligation between ruler and ruled.But when Confucianism was endorsed as state ideology, the state rewrote
Confucianism and eliminated the obligations government had to its people.Imperial Confucianism was used as a means to
pacify extremely large and diverse populations (China’s population had already
numbered at 86 million by 2 A.D.).

It’s interesting to note that Christianity, a religion that
initially started as a subversive religion for the oppressed, was co-opted by
monarchs as a way to exert social control over pagan European cultures.

Given the tenacious entrenchment of Confucian values, how
might one account for the aggressive, individualistic and volatile sensibility
of the Cantonese?We can begin by
looking at two important variables, namely incomplete acculturation and
perpetual social instability.

Because the ancient Chinese of North China – the Han people
– did not succeed in absorbing a previously conquered Kwangtung until the Tang
period (7th-10th century A.D.), the natives of the region
(the so-called Yueh aborigines) were long in possession of a highly independent
and sharply defined Cantonese culture.

The majority of the estimated 450,000 Americans of Chinese
descent* trace their ancestry back to the southeastern Chinese province of
Canton (Kwantung), to a ferociously independent people who, even after their
conquest by the Chinese Empire (Tang Dynasty, 7th century A.D.),
continued to be what the Irish have always been to the British and what the
Basque have been to the Spanish and French.

*Note: This article was written 1978, so I’m sure now there are
way more than 450,000 Chinese Americans, and a significant number of them can
trace their ancestry to places other than Guangdong.

While the Cantonese are noted for a distinct warrior-like
tendency toward independent, totally self-sufficient behavior, loyalty has
always been just as important.In an
unstable, hostile, anarchist society, loyalty was always on people’s
minds.Autonomy by itself, without
interpersonal connection, was individualized madness which left the person
vulnerable to attack from every conceivable direction, while complete loyalty was pathos – one was then merely another man’s man and not a person in
possession of his own life.

In these contexts, loyalty was given freely, voluntarily and
on one’s own terms.At the same time
that very same loyalty could be withdrawn at any moment.

For the Cantonese, the only metaphor for life is war.From their heterodox traditions, actual
Cantonese social and political history and our understanding of the Cantonese
sensibility as ferociously independent, aggressive and volatile, it is clear
that everything a Cantonese does is tantamount to a warrior’s act.To be sure, this is not as barbaric a
phenomenon as it may sound to Western ears, because (1) it does not mean
murderous violence in every instance; (2) it is not amoral, for the highest
moral law – the only moral law – is that one must keep his/her word; and (3) it
is not be equated with the narcissistic individualism of the West, because the
individual is preoccupied with loyalty and does form frequent and spontaneous alliances.

One is born, and one dies in war.One never wins the war, but that is life.The only genuine source of dignity and
self-respect – indeed, the only reliable means for survival – resides in the
achievement of a warrior’s autonomy.

These themes have been aimed at the development of total
autonomy and self-sufficiency in the individual child who, it is always
assumed, must contend with an essentially indifferent and hostile world.The central emphasis is to train the
youngster to look after himself and, like the mythic Chinese warrior models of
old, to rely on no one, to trust nothing that cannot be counted on, and above
all, to keep one’s word.

This applies to every conceivable issue and circumstance in
life, including emotional problems.Powerful, untidy feelings are to be managed entirely on one’s own,
without counsel or solace from other people.Turning to family and friends is a final recourse but here we have a
paradox: one can always call on significant others, yet they are in fact to be
regarded as the absolute last resort.An
alliance or friendship carries with it the right to casually invade each
other’s privacy, but this is not to be abused.A sign of love, therefore, is never having to make demands.One takes care of one’s own, beginning with
oneself.

Naturally as might be expected, this rather severe style of
child rearing and relating frequently resulted in the creation of arrogant,
cocksure, untrusting and mildly neurotic individuals.Those who do not come through psychologically
intact very often exhibit symptoms that psychologist Stanley Sue (1971) found in yellow male
college students: “blunted affect, dependency, inferiority feelings,
ruminations, somatic complaints and lack of social skills,” all pointing at
times to a variety of “pseudo-neurotic schizophrenia.”These traits, however, are also grounded in
the experience of institutional white racism, as well as the lingering but
persistent influence of orthodox Confucian values.

In summary then, when the Chinese American refers to his
heritage, he must reckon with the historical reality that his was a peasant or
merchant lineage, a traditionally unsophisticated and oppressed segment of
Chinese society.The scholar-official
class did not emigrate to California and other parts of the world beyond the
Middle Kingdom in search of better livelihood, since they already had full
access to all the resources of Chinese society, including the power to define
culture, relationships and identity itself.The peasant adjusted to powerlessness by restricting his concerns to
simply “taking care of his own,” for to meddle in affairs beyond his immediate
village or clan community entailed enormous risks.To give others the impression that you are
satisfied with your lot, even if it is meager, and that you wish only to mind
your own business, meant those with power would leave you alone. Such was the psychology of peasant survival.

There was a time when the Cantonese peasant-laborer did not
believe he was timid and accommodating and ignorant as he had wanted his
oppressors to think.The meek-and-mild
mentality, the proclivity to mind one’s own business and to limit interaction
to immediate relationships, was originally a façade, a conscious manufactured
appearance – a survival mechanism to be activated or shelved at will, in
requirements of the historical moment.Assimilation of the southern Yueh peoples in the Chinese Empire had
always been incomplete, largely because of geographical removal and the
tradition of perpetual rebelliousness.The
Manchus, for example, conquered north China without a struggle but had to fight
another 38 years to subdue the south.When the Qing (Manchu) dynasty finally crumbled, it was southerners who
initiated revolution.South China, in
short, had always been the most difficult region for dynastic regimes to
conquer and reputedly the population to revolt with the greatest ferocity.

If Sue’s timid and docile Traditionalist-Marginal Man
syndrome
typifies the personality makeup of the average Chinese American – and there is
ample reason to believe their “test profiles” and studies – the etiological
answer is to be, I would argue, in the transformation of the survival mechanism
into an actual identity.Somewhere along
the way, the Chinese American came to believe he really was the graciously
passive, sometimes loveable but always non-threatening Chink.

Ignorance or denial of his rural Cantonese peasant-laborer
lineage – and the 150 year experience of his predecessors on these shores –
kept the Chinese American trapped behind constrictive, deadening variations of
the Chink stereotype.Imported to
America and reactivated for its function and adaptive value, the survival psychology
of “meek and mildness” solidified and, in its all-too-successful response to
total repression by white racism, became embedded in the Chinese American
psyche as a permanent identity.

Popular posts from this blog

As a strength trainer with an Asian American background, I often get questions and comments from Asian dudes all over the world. A common theme that pops up among Asian lifters is the belief that their Asian genes are limiting their progress in their quest for a muscular physique.

I always tell them this: don't let race or ethnicity be a limiting factor in your training goals or any goal. It does not matter if you are Asian or a skinny bastard or a woman. If your goal is to be bigger, faster, stronger, then you still travel the same road that everyone else travels to size and strength.

I mean look at Tommy Kono. Here was a Japanese American who grew up in an internment camp, and he became arguably the greatest Olympic weightlifter the US offered to the world. He was also a successful bodybuilder, winning the Mr. Universe title in 1955 and 1957. He built a phenomenal physique in an era before steroids. He didn't let race or ethnicity be a limiting factor in his mind or on his…